Godot Project Grep

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't specify what the search returns (matched lines, file paths, context), whether it's regex-cased, whether it respects gitignore, how many matches are returned by default, or any limits. For a search tool with a maxMatches parameter, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single-sentence description is efficient and waste-free. It's appropriately short for the task, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavior detail. Still, conciseness itself is well-executed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return format, default flag behavior, match limits, or scope of 'project files.' Compared to other search tools in the sibling list, this one is underspecified for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters (pattern, flags, maxMatches). It mentions the regex concept but provides no detail on what 'flags' means (case-insensitivity, multiline, etc.) or what maxMatches controls. The agent must infer all of this from parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search project files using a regular expression' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (project files), distinguishing it from most sibling tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from closely related tools like godot_project_search or godot_script_symbols, and 'project files' is somewhat broad without specifying scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_project_search, godot_file_list, or godot_script_symbols. There's no mention of whether it searches all project files or specific types, nor any exclusions or caveats about performance on large projects.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.